Procedure turn or no procedure turn

[flyinghunter]

I had a similiar thing happen a few weeks ago, what do you guys think is correct? We were on a Victor airway, call it V357, with a VOR on the airway being the IAF and FAF for a VOR approach into an airport. The victor airway went to the VOR on a 270 heading and the final approach course was 248 or something like that into the airport. When we were 7 miles from the VOR ATC said, proceed direct VOR XYZ cleared for VOR 28 approach. We weren't on a vector prior to that or anything. Since we weren't established on the approach prior to the VOR I think we would've had to go to the VOR and then outbound for the procedure turn. We were in actual. My student said we could just head inbound, we ended up asking for a vector to final so no confusion. What do you guys think?

 

[minitour]

Fly: I would have done the PT unless I was going to pass by another IAF on the airway or if the airway sector was labeled NO PT VIA AIRWAYS or however it's labeled on those charts.

Direct VOR cleared VOR approach...ya...PT

That's my 2/100 of $1.

-mini

 

[81Horse]

I think we would've had to go to the VOR and then outbound for the procedure turn. We were in actual. My student said we could just head inbound, we ended up asking for a vector to final so no confusion. What do you guys think?

Your student had a vote? He was wrong. IMO.

 

[flyinghunter]

Your student had a vote? He was wrong. IMO.

Gotta test them to see what they would do. I had never been in that situation but knew what I was going to do if it came up if it was just me in the plane.

 

[nosehair]

Definition of a procedure turn: AIM 5-4-9 a. "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn is a required maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course reversal."
Bold letters are in the AIM, not mine.
It is that bold line,which didn't used to be bold, that makes this turn so mis-understood. Most instructors and schools teach a procedure turn must be done anytime when it is not prohibited, as in radar vectors or "NoPT" shown on the approch chart for the transition you are on. However, that is not what the above AIM reference says to me.
Whether or not you have to make a course reversal or not, is when you decide if a PT is required or not.
90 degrees sounds like the limit on whether or not you are calling yourself doing a "course reversal". A good rule of thumb would be anything more than 30-45 degrees from your inbound course to the final approach course would make a PT necessary, but that is for you, the PIC, to decide.
If you are very familiar with the approach, you know where a 90 degree turn will take you, and you know you will not bust airspace, terrain clearance, and will get established on final course safely before commencing descent and will get to MDA in good time,...go for it. If you are on an unfamiliar approach, etc., do the turn and get on course before the FAF. The procedure turn just depicts the side on which to do the turn if a course reversal is necessary.

 

[midlifeflyer]

However, that is not what the above AIM reference says to me.

Yeah, but that's only because you have a mental block about the next sentence, which moves from describing what a procedure turn =is= to when you are required to =do it=.

BTW, can you define "prescribed" and tell me when you last presecribed a preocedure turn?

 

[nosehair]

Yeah, but that's only because you have a mental block about the next sentence, which moves from describing what a procedure turn =is= to when you are required to =do it=.

BTW, can you define "prescribed" and tell me when you last presecribed a preocedure turn?

???...the next sentence?? The next sentence says: "The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "NoPT" is shown, etc..." Are you taking that to mean that the turn is required in all cases, except these, regardless? That is what the common thinking is, I think.

But...the sentence that describes what a procedure turn =is=also includes when it is required to =do it=.

Look at the '05 AIM Section 5-4-9 Procedure Turn: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required when..."

Now look at the '06 AIM Section 5-4-9 Procedure Turn: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn is a required maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course reversal. The procedure turn is not required when..."

See the difference? In the old wording, I have underlined the sentence which makes everyone think it is required at all times, with the specific exceptions which follow. That is taken out of context when the previous sentence is not considered. However, the new wording makes it clear that the turn is "prescribed" when it is necessary to perform a course reversal.

Why did they add those words? In Bold?

 

[midlifeflyer]

???...the next sentence?? The next sentence says: "The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "NoPT" is shown, etc..." Are you taking that to mean that the turn is required in all cases, except these, regardless? That is what the common thinking is, I think.

No. The next sentence says:

==============================
The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.
==============================

http://www.faa.gov/ntap/NTAP06JAN19/gen05007.htm

 

[A Squared]

The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart

It doesn't get much plainer than that, does it?

 

[flyinghunter]

So what defines a course reversal, is there some degree of change that would qualify it? I have spoken to some controllers though, on this situation. They said that you are required to do the procedure turn unless on radar vectors or cleared for a straight-in approach.